EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
So much about compliance isn’t black or white, it’s subjective. Take, for example, how much time should you have to accommodate a cease communication request from a consumer. A plaintiff in Florida has filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging a collection operation violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not honor the cease communication request that he sent fast enough.
The background: Back in early June, the plaintiff received a communication from the defendant. It was a Model Validation Notice attempting to collect a debt of $8,508.95. The complaint refers to this communication as the initial communication, but the first page of the exhibit says, “We have received a recent inquiry regarding the above-referenced account and have enclosed the account summary which provides verification of the debt.”
- On or about July 22, the plaintiff sent the defendant a cease and desist letter, requesting the defendant cease all communication, according to the complaint. The letter also informed the defendant that the plaintiff was disputing the debt.
- The cease and desist letter was delivered on July 28, according to the complaint.
- The complaint then states that the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection communication “on or about July 30,” which violated the cease request.
- The July 30 letter was dated July 30 and was an account summary that provided verification of the debt.
- I’m not an expert about the inner workings of the United States Postal Service, but it might be entirely possible that the July 30 letter was mailed before the defendant received the July 28 cease and desist letter from the plaintiff.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by communicating with the plaintiff after receiving a cease request.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
- The suit seeks to include anyone who received a communication from the defendant after a cease communication request had been made.
